🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • First Amendment - Free Speech
CONLAW#154
Legal Definition
Laws that require disclosure of group membership, where such disclosure would chill association, must meet strict scrutiny—although one may inquire into these activities that are relevant to the employment or benefit sought.
Plain English Explanation
Laws that require people to reveal the groups they belong to must be very carefully examined by the courts. This is because such laws might stop people from joining certain groups or expressing their opinions freely. The courts will only allow these laws if they are extremely important and necessary for the greater good.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Hypofornia passes a law demanding that all religious organizations submit their full membership lists to the state annually for "monitoring" purposes. The Church of Sam refuses to comply, arguing it would deter people from joining if they knew their affiliation would be reported to the government. Result: This law would also likely be struck down under strict scrutiny. Compelled disclosure of religious affiliations by the government is a serious infringement on both freedom of association and religious liberty. It would chill membership and participation. A court would be very skeptical that the government has any compelling need for those membership lists that could justify such an intrusion.
Hypo 2: A new law requires disclosure of any membership in the Overthrow America Party to get a government job or contract. Bob is a member but refuses to disclose it when he applies to work at the DMV. The government rejects his application solely because he did not disclose. Result: This law has a better chance of surviving than the previous examples. Since it's limited to the context of government employment, a court might find the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring people in certain sensitive positions are not associated with groups that seek to overthrow the government. As long as it's narrowly focused on groups that demonstrably pose a security risk, and closely connected to the job requirements, a court might uphold it. But it would be a close case.
Hypo 3: Amy is a school teacher. Under a New Hypoland law, she is required to list all civic and volunteer organizations she is a part of as part of an annual "transparency report" posted on the school's public website. She leaves off her membership in a local LGBTQ alliance out of fear of harassment. Result: A court would probably find this law unconstitutional as applied to Amy. Forced disclosure of memberships unrelated to her fitness as a teacher unnecessarily chills her associational freedom. Unless membership in a particular group clearly impacts her classroom duties, there is no good justification for requiring its disclosure, especially in such a public manner.
Hypo 2: A new law requires disclosure of any membership in the Overthrow America Party to get a government job or contract. Bob is a member but refuses to disclose it when he applies to work at the DMV. The government rejects his application solely because he did not disclose. Result: This law has a better chance of surviving than the previous examples. Since it's limited to the context of government employment, a court might find the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring people in certain sensitive positions are not associated with groups that seek to overthrow the government. As long as it's narrowly focused on groups that demonstrably pose a security risk, and closely connected to the job requirements, a court might uphold it. But it would be a close case.
Hypo 3: Amy is a school teacher. Under a New Hypoland law, she is required to list all civic and volunteer organizations she is a part of as part of an annual "transparency report" posted on the school's public website. She leaves off her membership in a local LGBTQ alliance out of fear of harassment. Result: A court would probably find this law unconstitutional as applied to Amy. Forced disclosure of memberships unrelated to her fitness as a teacher unnecessarily chills her associational freedom. Unless membership in a particular group clearly impacts her classroom duties, there is no good justification for requiring its disclosure, especially in such a public manner.
Related Concepts
Are fighting words protected speech?
Are profane and indecent speech protected?
Can government speech be challenged?
How do you analyze a free speech issue?
Is anonymous speech protected?
Is discretion allowed in determining fees for public demonstrations?
Is speech protected when it incites illegal activity?
May the government seize assets of businesses that violate obscenity laws?
What are content-based restrictions, and which level of scrutiny is applied?
What are designated public forums?
What are limited public forums?
What are non-public forums?
What are prior restraints and when are they valid?
What are public forums?
What are the limits of free speech during a broadcast?
What does the 1st Amendment prohibit, and how is it applied?
What is the 1st Amendment right to access private property for speech?
What is the constitutionality of laws prohibiting group discrimination?
What level of scrutiny is applied to content-based restrictions on public forums?
What level of scrutiny is applied to court orders suppressing speech?
What level of scrutiny is applied to laws impacting freedom of association?
What rights do the press have in addition to those granted to private citizens?
When are obscenities and sexually oriented speech considered obscene?
When are time, place, and manner restrictions on speech valid?
When is a law unconstitutionally overbroad?
When is a law unconstitutionally vague?
When is commercial speech protected, and when is it not?
When is speech by government employees not protected?
When may a private figure recover for defamation if there is no matter of public concern?
When may a private figure recover for defamation regarding a matter of public concern?
When may a public official or figure recover for defamation?
When may the government ban child pornography?
When may the government burden lawful, non-misleading, non-fraudulent commercial speech?
When may the government punish or limit news reporting?
When may the government punish private possession of obscene materials?
When may the government regulate symbolic speech?
When may the government require a license for speech?
When may the government use zoning ordinances to regulate adult businesses?
Which level of scrutiny is applied to content-neutral restrictions?
